Don't think Al and Jesse will be showing up for this incident.
Posted on 10/14/2013 4:10:49 AM PDT by Morgana
FULL TITLE: South Carolina man who shot unarmed teenager dead will NOT face trial under controversial Stand Your Ground law
A South Carolina mother has spoken out in shock after it was announced on Friday that the man who shot dead her 17-year-old son will not be tried for his murder because of the state's 'Stand Your Ground Law'.
In April 2010, Shannon Anthony Scott, who was then 33, opened fire on a SUV full of teenage girls outside his home in Columbia and unintentionally hit unarmed 17-year-old Darrell Andre Niles in his car, killing him.
Despite being arrested and charged with the murder of Niles immediately after the shooting, Scott's legal team successfully argued for immunity under the state's Protection of Persons and Property ACT, otherwise known as the Castle Doctrine or 'Stand Your Ground' law.
Niles' mother, Deatra Niles, can't believe Scott may never come to court
'It's not right; it's not right,' said Niles. 'Just to think he took my child's life away when my baby was helping his child get home.'
Richland County Judge Maite Murphy ruled that Scott genuinely believed his life was in danger and was therefore justified in using deadly force.
The court heard that Scott meant to shoot at a car that was full of teenage girls who had threatened the life of his daughter and who drove past his house and fired shots.
Scroll Down for Video
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
Um, yeah, for sure.
This article is garbled even by Daily Mail standards. Was young Mr. “Boo Boo” Niles in the car with the teenaged girls who were shooting at Mr. Scott’s house? And where was the baby?
Yea I know. “Her baby” was 17! So that was her grandbaby he was taking home? Some mom!
I like the way he was “helping his child get home,” as if the child was capable of getting home on its own. Wherever home is. Whoever the child is.
Who are these people?
“I like the way he was “helping his child get home,” as if the child was capable of getting home on its own. “
Come on TC the lad is only 17 so I figure his child is only what? An infant to about two years? Strapped in a car seat maybe?
“Who are these people?”
Obama voters!
Good point.
Yeah, that's what I want to know, too.
What a crap article.
Maybe one of the teenaged girls was the baby-mama.
The way I read the article it appears he was not. Scott shot at the car that was threatening him and hit the other car, killing Niles. Now, did the bullet go through the car full of people threatening him and then hit Niles? In that case I could see him not being charged. It was just unfortunate that the bullet didn't hit one of the perpetrators first.
I read that article three times and still have no idea what occurred other than some guy got shot.
Okay, fact gained. Mr. Niles was not in the car with the girls.
Stupid Brits. Do they not realize that if the other teenagers in the car were committing a crime at the time of Trayvon's Darrell's death, they would be charged with his murder, as if they'd killed him themselves.
"Stand Your Ground" is only one law that protects citizens in this country who are not the aggressors and not the criminals in a deadly force situation. It is only controversial to people who wish only the police had guns. That was tried once: Communism. Its outcome was predictable.
“This article is garbled even by Daily Mail standards.”
Yes, it’s a complete mess. I have no idea what happened, but I see from the photos that all involved were black, so it must be Bush’s fault.
I scanned other articles about this story, and some of them tried to transform the shooter into a "white guy", so they could make it a race issue.
Don't think Al and Jesse will be showing up for this incident.
The writer at the link in post 11 claims this man could be white, or have associations with “white privilege.”
We live in Bizarro World.
This article is awfully short of facts and awfully long on hyperbole!
The people that started the incident should be charged with murder not Scott. A jury shouldn’t have the power to decide that a man defending himself should be tried with murder.
So, it sounds to me like a car load of girls needs to be hauled in and arrested and prosecuted for, at the very least, involuntary manslaughter as their malevolent actions were the root cause of this young man’s death.
Haul those females in first.
It is almost like someone ran it through babble fish to turn it into another language and then back through to get it into English.
Zimmerman shot the person who was attacking him and threatening his life. Yet the "Stand Your Ground" law was not applied. Zimmerman was tried and found not guilty of murder or manslaughter.
The Scott case is completely different. Here, the "Stand Your Ground" law was applied when Scott missed the people in the car who were threatening his life and killed an innocent bystander in another car.
Here is the story on your “rest of the story”
“This is, of course, pure speculation, but I wouldn’t be surprised if Scott, a seemingly white man, feared these teens because they were nonwhite and therefore considered inherently violent.
On a side note, I realize Scott doesn’t necessarily look white,(He is obviously black) but that doesn’t mean he doesn’t benefit from white supremacy/privilege that our criminal justice system was built on, especially given that his victim was a young black male.”
This whole incident is black on black violence, yet the author blames “white supremacy/privilege” for the verdict! The author destroys her credibility with this absurd charge even if some of her other points are valid.
But then, in the eyes of guilt tripping white “liberals”, whites are to blame for EVERYTHING bad that happens to black people.
The mother says this...
‘It’s not right; it’s not right,’ said Niles. ‘Just to think he took my child’s life away when my baby was helping his child get home.’
Reality says this...
“The court heard that Scott meant to shoot at a car that was full of teenage girls who had threatened the life of his daughter and who drove past his house and fired shots.”
Society’s problems always start in the home. Teach your children to walk a Godly path and they won’t be pulling crap like this thus getting themselves killed.
I agree with you too. Manslaughter charges but not murder should be brought.
“We live in Bizarro World.”
Oy, that writer certainly does. Thanks for pointing this link out.
I will say no matter that blogger’s confused thinking on “white privilege” he or she did a much better job of recounting the events than the newspaper did.
Yes, we know a little more.
“Maybe one of the teenaged girls was the baby-mama.”
Never thought of that!
Well, now I’m thinking there is no baby involved, except “Boo Boo” Niles himself. When his mother said “his child,” she was referring to Mr. Scott’s daughter. The implication is that Mr. Niles was on the side of Mr. Scott’s daughter in whatever dispute was going on.
From this account is sounds like the SUV with the girls fired shots near, but not at the home. The story makes it sound like after hearing the shots Scott ran out and fired at the first person he saw.
Now I’m thinking this story is so strange we may never know what really happened only that a 17 year old was shot.
It is my understanding that in any case where a death occurs in the commission of a felony (making terroristic threats and firing shots from a car)
that all criminals involved are charged with first degree murder.
“feared these teens because they were nonwhite and therefore considered inherently violent”
Statistically, how would this be an erroneous consideration?
It’s probably all part of an ongoing gang conflict in the local high school, and there will be plenty more episodes to come.
“The case involved the 2010 shooting of Darrell Niles, 17, a Keenan High School student and basketball player, who was across the street in a car when Shannon Scott, then 33, fired his handgun. Shortly before, an SUV filled with youths who had been threatening his 15-year-old daughter drove by his house and they fired shots, according to testimony in the case.
Smith then saw Niles’ 1992 Honda, and, believing its occupants posed a danger, fired his gun from his front yard across the street, hitting Niles in the head with a .380 bullet, killing him instantly. No evidence indicated Niles was a threat to Scott or his daughter...
...Niles might have had “honorable intentions,” Rutherford said, but the teen put himself in danger “by following my client’s daughter home at 1:30 in the morning.”
http://www.thestate.com/2013/10/09/3029466/exclusive-father-not-charged-in.html#storylink=cpy
As best I can tell, the kid shot was one of the ones following the daughter.
“Society’s problems always start in the home. Teach your children to walk a Godly path and they won’t be pulling crap like this thus getting themselves killed.”
Except the guy who was killed wasn’t “pulling crap like” anything. He had nothing to do with the girls in the SUV.
Agree. I’m a strong supported of “Stand Your Ground” laws but feel this case takes it to an extreme that is out of bounds. In my opinion, manslaughter charges at the minimum are warranted. As you say, then let a jury decide.
Of course, you won’t see Al and Jesse down there, because the shooter was also black.
i too agree. from what i read this is very questionable. if i shoot 2 people who have pulled guns on me but my bullets go through the target and hit an innocent person, i am responsible for that death. not murder but some type of manslaughter charge
On the night in question, the daughter came home and said she was being followed by a group of girls. A disputed fact is that the girls in the car fired shots toward the house; defendant claimed it, evidence was not found to substantiate it.
Father then went outside, and shot at the first car he saw, which happened to be a parked car with the victim in it. The victim had nothing to do with the girls in the SUV, and in fact may have been a friend of the daughter's who followed the others home to make sure the girls didn't beat up the daughter. Nobody really knows why he followed. But he was not armed, and nobody suggests he was part of the activity.
The father originally said nothing to the police about shooting the boy; 4 days later he told them, and was arrested. This was in 2010.
The judge ruled that, based on the belief that girls in some car had shot at the house, the father was justified in walking outside and shooting at a random car in the street.
-----
MY OPINION: The judge is wrong. We are all endangered by people who own guns who think that they have a right to shoot at anything that moves any time they think they might be threatened. Under this judge's ruling, if a guy was sitting in his house, and heard a car backfire but thought it was a shot, the guy could walk outside, see someone walking past his house, and shoot them dead.
I found an pro-gun blog who looked into this story and agreed that the judge was wrong in this case, and that the case will make it harder for people to use their guns properly to protect their families.
In which I agree with Think Progress for once
Also: The guy sure looks black to me, although I guess he could also be a dark-skinned hispanic. The attempt to claim he is "white" is absurd.
That is one of the articles that originally claimed the shooter was white — you can still see that in the URL link name. But they removed “white” from the headline. Later they argue that the guy was “white enough” to get the advantage of “white privilege”.
I pretty much laugh at anybody who uses the term “white privilege”. IT is the latest attempt by the left to not have to deal with facts.
This story is so short of details that I’m not sure that you can actually say that. Sure… the story says Niles was a ‘bystander’, but does not provide an evidence for that assertion. It was 1:30 am… why was he there? One assumes that if Niles was the one who had just dropped off the girls, that point would have been made in the article right? So one assumes that can’t be the case…. the article also says that “he followed her home”. What does that mean and what was the evidence for that? Was he friends with the thug girls in the SUV and was just following along behind them to watch the hell that was about to break out? Or was he friends with the 15 year old and had some insight into what was going on and thus what could happen and so was trying to see those girls safely home? Was he also in the nightclub with either groups of girls? Did he know any of them? More details needed in so many areas….the article says that Niles was in his car when he got shot but unless I missed it, the article doesn’t make it clear if he was simply driving the car down the road or was sitting parked in his car. Was he in his car but had he been out of it just prior to being shot? And when the father says that he acknowledged shooting him, did that mean that he took specific aim at him to shoot him? Or was he (as somewhat intonated) just a bad shot? I don’t know how any conclusions can be made from this and one wonders why it was so poorly written…. Did the 12 page document written by the judge not give any of these details?
Not that it has much to do the issue at stake but why were a bunch of 15 year olds in a night club?
The guy’s attorney actually made that argument, that the girls in the car should be charged. But they don’t seem to have ever found the girls in the car, or charged them with anything.
There also was no evidence found of other shots fired, although the judge seems to have accepted that at least the father THOUGHT there were shots fired.
Reading from other articles, it APPEARS that by the time the father went outside with his gun, the SUV with the girls in it was gone, and all that was there was this parked car with the victim.
If there were shots fired from the car, then all lives in the car could be forfeit. The story does a pretty good job of glossing that over.
The guy who was shot was in a different car.
Yup. That's why the term "innocent bystander" is so misleading here. Saying that he was an innocent bystander suggests that the shooter shot at the SUV, missed, and hit this guy instead. But, based on other articles, it seems that the shooter intentionally shot at the victim, thinking that the shot came from the victim's car.
"Innocent bystander" doesn't capture that - "mistaken identity" seems more accurate, and paints a whole different picture. It's one thing to say that self-defense/SYG should apply where you are justifiably defending yourself and accidentally kill someone who got in the way; it's another thing to say that it should apply where you intentionally kill the wrong person.
Yes, I saw that later. Sad story all around.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.